RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01131 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The debt for his home-of-record (HOR) move be reduced. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The information he received during his Household Goods (HHG) counseling did not inform him of the significant costs he would assume for his HOR move. The initial cost estimate for his decision to relocate to another location that was not his HOR was $297.00. Had he known the cost of moving an additional 200 miles beyond his authorized limit would cost him $6,479.30, he would have made other arrangements. He was informed after the move that he was 2,030 pounds over his limit which was too late to make any changes. He was not notified for over two years of the difference in cost. This debt has caused a financial hardship on his family and will take years to pay back. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and a copy of his claim protest. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was honorably discharged from active duty effective 14 June 2007 in the grade of major (O-4). His HOR is indicated as Warroad, Minnesota. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service records, are contained in the Air Force evaluation at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: PPA HQ/CCC recommends denial. CCC states that per Special Order A-055, dated 18 March 2007, the applicant was relieved from active duty effective 1 May 2007, for the purpose of separation from the Air Force. Incident to his separation, he initiated a DD Form 1299, Application for Shipment and/or Storage of Personnel Property, through the Traffic Management Flight (TMF) at Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas, to have his HHG shipped. He was authorized to ship HHG to his HOR in Warroad, Minnesota; however, he elected to have his HHG shipped to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, under Bill of Lading (BL) ZX-653433 on 12 June 2008. In June 2010, PPA HQ/ECAF initiated a debt in the amount of $6,479.30 through the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) against the applicant for shipping HHG in excess of the authorized weight allowance and for shipping to a location other than the authorized destination. The applicant filed a rebuttal, dated 2 November 2010, stating that he received an estimate of $297.00 for excess cost when scheduling his move, which was significantly lower than the $6,500.00 actual debt. PPA HQ/ECAF reviewed the case and determined the debt was indeed correct. They advised the applicant that the difference between the estimated cost and the actual cost was due in part to the estimate being for only 10,800 pounds and the actual weight being 20,030 pounds. Also, he was liable for the cost difference between having his authorized weight allowance shipped to his HOR, and the cost expended by the Government to have his actual weight shipped to his selected destination. Furthermore, not being informed of the debt in a timely manner is not a basis for relieving him of his liability to reimburse the Government for funds expended in excess of those authorized. CCC indicates that although the estimate was much lower than the actual cost, it cannot be used as a substitute for actual costs. Factors such as the actual weight, almost twice the amount as the estimate, exceeding the authorized weight allowance, and the system selecting a mover with a higher rate contributed significantly to the actual higher costs. These additional factors were not known until after the packing, pickup, weighing, and shipment of his HHG. The fact that this information was not known up front does not relieve the applicant of his responsibility for reimbursing the Government for all costs expended over the amount authorized. The complete PPA HQ/CCC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He does not dispute his responsibility for the additional cost of moving beyond the mileage and the additional weight. What he does dispute is the amount that he is responsible for. The majority of the cost comes from the Line Haul Rate (LHR). The estimate of $297.00 given to him was calculated based on the location in Pennsylvania. The only mistake made on the estimate was the authorized weight. The rate calculated after the move almost doubled. The cost of packing for the additional 2,030 pounds increased significantly. He is being asked to cover approximately 30 percent of the total packing costs for an additional 2,030 pounds. In addition, the rate for the fuel charge changed from the estimate he received. He is being asked to pay for 30 percent of the total cost for an additional 200 miles of the total 1800 miles. They gave him an estimate for moving to Pennsylvania, but did not use the rates quoted to him. He based his decision on the information he was provided knowing there would be additional cost. However, what he is asked to pay now is far beyond what was expected. It seems unreasonable to give a member a cost estimate with specific rates and then use a completely different set of rates and expect the member to be responsible for it. Everyone should be charged based on the rates they were quoted in order to give them an opportunity to plan and budget for their family. He is willing to pay some of the additional cost, but, it seems the actual rates used were never disclosed to him. The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant was improperly charged with a debt as a result of the shipment of his Household Goods (HHG). While the applicant attributes the imposed debt to having been miscounselled on the estimated costs and indicates he would have made other arrangements had he received a better estimate of costs, it appears he did not provide all of the details related to his move to receive a more accurate estimate. We note he shipped almost double his authorized weight allowance and then to a different location than originally indicated. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01131 in Executive Session on 1 November 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-01131: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Mar 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, PPA HQ/ECAF, dated 24 Jan 11, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, PPA HQ/CCC, dated 4 Aug 11, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Aug 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Sep 11. Panel Chair